So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[zooterkin]

the consequence of what you wrote is that if you knew you could get away with a crime that would benefit you, there's no real reason why you shouldn't do it.

Why is that any different for an atheist than a theist?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

would it be your position that other people should share your belief re: Hitler/Sweden?

Yes, I think other people should think that modern Sweden is better than Nazi Germany was. That’s also a subjective conviction (the other one was that I think modern Sweden is better). Only because many might share my sentiment in this matter, does not make your statement about the existence of an “objective moral truth” true. Their beliefs would still be subjective, whatever they are.

 

[plumjam]

As much as I hate to get sucked into this merry-go-round...

plumjam, I don't understand the concept of secular societies implying that life, the universe and everything is meaningless. My confusion arises over the meaning of meaningless. In what sense are you using "meaningless' in the way that it applies to life, the universe and everything? And, if you could, clearly state what meaning you take there to be in life, the universe and everything that secular societies ignore/deny?

John, that would really deserve a thread of its own to go into at any ...(oops, I was just about to write 'meaningful') worthwhile length.
Basically, though, the evolutionary physicalist paradigm which lies behind the great majority of education, and thus inevitably the assumptions of which find their way into the media, language, culture etc..

This states that the universe is a chance inexplicable event not brought into existence intentionally for a purpose. A chance system without intentionality cannot be, as a whole, meaningful. There is no objective meaning. Without objective meaning subjective meaning is ultimately a form of self-delusion, and is literally meaningless. Without objective meaning there can be no objective morality. Subjective morality is thus another form of delusion. We are thus free to make up whatever kind of moral system we like. One is literally as good as another.

Anyway.. we could go down that path if you want to come back.

 

[plumjam]

Yes, I think other people should think that modern Sweden is better than Nazi Germany was. That’s also a subjective conviction (the other one was that I think modern Sweden is better). Only because many might share my sentiment in this matter, does not make your statement about the existence of an “objective moral truth” true. Their beliefs would still be subjective, whatever they are.

You think the chair is blue, upholstered in velvet, and made of mahogany.. you don't know it. You also think other people should think the chair is roughly like that too.

You think this because you trust your visual perception, and have faith that it refers to an 'objective' reality.

You also think that modern Sweden is better than Nazism, morally speaking. If someone were to come along and tell you they feel Nazism more moral would you describe this person as more, less, or equally as moral as you?

 

[zooterkin]

John, that would really deserve a thread of its own to go into at any ...(oops, I was just about to write 'meaningful') worthwhile length.

I don't see why that would need a new thread, surely this is at the heart of the misconceptions that have lead to you start this thread?

Basically, though, the evolutionary physicalist paradigm which lies behind the great majority of education, and thus inevitably the assumptions of which find their way into the media, language, culture etc..

This states that the universe is a chance inexplicable event not brought into existence intentionally for a purpose. A chance system without intentionality cannot be, as a whole, meaningful. There is no objective meaning. Without objective meaning subjective meaning is ultimately a form of self-delusion, and is literally meaningless. Without objective meaning there can be no objective morality. Subjective morality is thus another form of delusion. We are thus free to make up whatever kind of moral system we like. One is literally as good as another.

Yes, indeed. And yet, amazingly, you'll find broad agreement among theists and atheists as to what morality is, and what their consciences tell them. Though of course there may be a difference of opinion as to what a conscience actually is. I don't believe mine is a supernatural hotline to god, for example.

 

[zooterkin]

You think the chair is blue, upholstered in velvet, and made of mahogany.. you don't know it. You also think other people should think the chair is roughly like that too.

You think this because you trust your visual perception, and have faith that it refers to an 'objective' reality.

But we're all looking at the same chair; we're not each looking at his own chair that the others cannot see.

You also think that modern Sweden is better than Nazism, morally speaking. If someone were to come along and tell you they feel Nazism more moral would you describe this person as more, less, or equally as moral as you?

Doesn't your argument fall apart if there was a single theist who supported the Nazi regime? Oops!

 

[plumjam]

Why is that any different for an atheist than a theist?

Given that the main factor in morality is conscience it isn't going to make a great deal of difference if you're an atheist or a theist in that context.

However, for some people, the belief that there is an omniscient being, who is aware of all your actions, watching, may well prove a disincentive to performing a crime they know no human will know of.

 

[Belz...]

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.

Precisely. Morals have nothing to do with religion.

Ergo, becoming an atheist has no moral consequence, aside from no longer wasting time and energy on myth.

 

[Belz...]

You think the chair is blue, upholstered in velvet, and made of mahogany.. you don't know it. You also think other people should think the chair is roughly like that too.

You think this because you trust your visual perception, and have faith that it refers to an 'objective' reality.

Why am I not surprised that you, Plum, have taken the cheap philosophical course and stopped at solipsism because it's a seemingly unassailable position ?

Go one step further, please.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh goodies, PJ's finally gotten around to his usual solipsistic claptrap!

 

[plumjam]

Yes, indeed. And yet, amazingly, you'll find broad agreement among theists and atheists as to what morality is, and what their consciences tell them. Though of course there may be a difference of opinion as to what a conscience actually is. I don't believe mine is a supernatural hotline to god, for example.

yes, because moral truth is objective, and is perceived via the individual conscience

 

[John_Geeshu]

This states that the universe is a chance inexplicable event not brought into existence intentionally for a purpose.

For the sake of brevity, assuming that is what is stated, is your objection to this because you have reasons to think it's wrong, or because you wish it to be wrong?

Another way of putting this is can you present an argument that says that the universe has a purpose without saying that without purpose there are no objective standards for morality?

 

[plumjam]

Why am I not surprised that you, Plum, have taken the cheap philosophical course and stopped at solipsism because it's a seemingly unassailable position ?

Go one step further, please.

Belz, knowing your usual kind of contribution please allow the one further step you go be away from that keyboard.

 

[zooterkin]

Given that the main factor in morality is conscience it isn't going to make a great deal of difference if you're an atheist or a theist in that context.

Starting to wriggle? I thought it was all about what you believe?

However, for some people, the belief that there is an omniscient being, who is aware of all your actions, watching, may well prove a disincentive to performing a crime they know no human will know of.

That doesn't make the existence of such a being more likely to be true. And as pointed out on page one of this thread, it is a sad reflection on theists if they only behave well because they think someone is watching them.

Anyway, not all theists believe that there is an omniscient god watching everything they do, and punishing them for any misdeed in the afterlife.

What was your argument again? Why do you keep picking on atheists?

 

[zooterkin]

yes, because moral truth is objective, and is perceived via the individual conscience

No it ****ing isn't objective, unless you can demonstrate that. Are you actually understanding any of the replies you get when you trot out that nonsense?

 

[joobz]

yes, because moral truth is objective, and is perceived via the individual conscience

Which is defined by the person's genetic makeup and experience.

So, where does god factor into it?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Plumjam has already started such a thread. It was demonstrated that the totalitarian systems he claimed to be a natural result of atheism were in fact based on the Soviet interpretation of Communism. The facts that the state itself was a virtual religion and that intellectual atheists were often imprisoned and executed because they were perceived as a threat to the state were both ignored by Plumjam.

No, no, no, the fact that they were dictators is totally irrelevant. And yes, it's perfectly fair to compare Christian democracies with secular dictatorships rather than comparing, you know, Christian democracies with secular (drumroll) democracies such as Iceland. It's like me going, "of course Indians are better than whites, look at how nice Gandhi and Good Indians A, B, C, and D were compared to how evil Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper were! As you can see from my examples, evil is an exception with Indians, but with them whites, it's the norm!".

Here's to wondering why on Earth this thread is still alive when plumjam has had his warped world view has been shot down a thousand times over and still clings to his bigotry with a persistence that'd make a KKK member seethe with envy. Don't feed the bigot, already.

Why do you keep picking on atheists?

He picks on atheists for the same reason homophobes pick on gays and racists pick on people of other ethnicities: he's ignorant and stuck in a fantasy world.

Keep things civil, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[plumjam]

For the sake of brevity, assuming that is what is stated, is your objection to this because you have reasons to think it's wrong, or because you wish it to be wrong?

Yes, I think there are plenty of reasons why it's wrong. The existence of physical laws. The incredible fine-tuning of those physical laws, without which our existence as embodied conscious beings would not be possible. The existence of consciousness. The incredible unlikelihood of abiogenesis. The existence, and irreducibility to naturalism, of morality. The existence of aesthetic appreciation. The lives and teachings of the great spiritual figures. Religious experience. The informational nature of the universe. Mathematics. etc...

 

[plumjam]

Which is defined by the person's genetic makeup and experience.

Joobz, that's a faith statement of yours.
When you are making moral decisions what does it feel like to you?
You examining your conscience, or you examining your personal genetic makeup + experience?

 

[plumjam]

Here's to wondering why on Earth this thread is still alive when plumjam has had his warped world view has been shot down a thousand times over and still clings to his bigotry with a persistence that'd make a KKK member seethe with envy. Don't feed the bigot, already.

He picks on atheists for the same reason homophobes pick on gays and racists pick on people of other ethnicities: he's ignorant and stuck in a fantasy world.

Lol

did you hide your pills under the mattress today?

Keep things civil, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer